ID: nht88-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Roito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Ritawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure 1" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on mot orcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure 1 a chamber containing a tail/sto p lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure 1, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with se parate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure 1b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11." Figure 1b specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sect ions used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to c omply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Tail & Stop Lamp for Motorcycle (1) photometric values (2) Spacing with Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones:

The photometric values which are required for tail & stop lamp for motorcycle are specified in S. 4.1.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108, and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp is specified in Table IV.

We would like to ask you the following questions concerning photometric values of tail g stop lamp for motorcycle and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp in the cases of Structure-(1) and -(2) which are shown in the attached drawing.

Question-1:

In Structure-(1) and -(2), which of the following cases shall be applied for the photometric values required for tail & stop lamp?

(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure lb of S. 4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamps on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photo-metric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S. 4.1.1.11.

Attn: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Jan. 25, 1988

Question-2; For each case of Structure-(1) and-(2) as illustrated in the attached sheet, shall the specification of 4 inch minimum spacing between tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp be required or not:

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mr. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht88-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C.I. Nielsen -- Vice President, General Sales Manager, Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen Vice President General Sales Manager Wesbar Corporation P.O. BOX 577 West Bend, WI 53095

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which applies to turn signal lamps. In pertinent part this section requires turn signal lamps for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more to "have an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches." Your design has a lens area of 12 square inches incorporating an integral Class A reflex reflector, and you have asked whether you may include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" in your calculation.

We assume from your letter that the light shines through the reflector when the turn signal is activated, and that the reflector is not opaque. In this instance, the reflector area may be included as part of "the effective projected luminous area" within the meaning of S4.1.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1988

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel-DOT Room 5219 NASSIf Building 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, DC 20590

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE INTERPRETATION 54.1.1.7

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are writing to you for clarification of 54.1.1.7 of FMVSS 108. Our request involves turn signal lamps on trailers 80-inches or more in width and, practically speaking, centers around the wording "shall have an effective project luminous area not less than 12 square inches".

Our design calls for a multifunction lens of 12 square inches, which incorporates an integral Class A reflex reflector. QUESTION: When the turn lamp is activated, may we include, for the square inch calculation, the illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens: We know we are allowed to optically combine two, or more, functions (except for the tail light with the clearance light function), therefore, we don't see this concept as the hurdle. Instead, we find the question lying with the definition of "effective projected luminous area".

Thank you for looking into this matter, Ms. Jones, and we look forward to receiving your written interpretation on the "effective projected luminous area".

Respectfully,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C.I. NIELSON III Vice President General Sales Manager

CIN:mm cc: J. Karrenbauer S. Johnston A. Cunningham DOT

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht88-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MORRIS EAST -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 7, 1987 LETTER FROM EAST TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you state that one of your local school systems intends to remove a bus body from "an existing chassis, and place that body onto a new chassis." You state further that the system's school bus maintenance shop would perform the work. You ask a number of questions which I shall answer in order. My answers as sume that, at a minimum, the engine, drive axles, and transmission of the new chassis are new components.

Question 1: Is it permissible under the (Vehicle Safety Act as amended) for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bus chassis?

The answer to this question is "yes." The Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from altering, modifying, or manufacturing a vehicle; nor has NHTSA established such a prohibition in its regulations.

Question 2: Would this action (in Question 1) violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220, 221)?

The act of removing a school bus body from one chassis and placing that body on a different chassis does not violate any Federal safety standard. However, when a person uses a new body and mixed new and used chassis components in refurbishing a vehicle, the question arises whether the vehicle is new. In past interpretations, NHTSA has applied @ 571.7(e) to school buses that combine a new body and either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used chassis components from different vehicles. If a school bus is considered "new" under the criteria set out in this provision, then the person who refurbishes the vehicle must

certify that the school bus meets all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the chassis was manufactured - including Standards 208, 220, and 221 if they apply - and affix a certification label under 49 CFR Part 567.

On the other hand, if an old bus body is placed on a chassis that is completely new, a different provision applies. In this case, the chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3 as: an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the ad dition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis meets this description, a subsequent person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, and must certify the completed vehicle as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as of a d ate no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (the new chassis). (49 CFR @ 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.)

Neither @ 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to recertify a school bus when the body and all other vehicle components are not new.

Question 3: If permitted, can the work described in (Question) 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehi cle repair shops such as body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

The answer to each of these statements is "yes." Remember, though, that if the refurbished buses are considered new under the criteria discussed in Question 2, they must meet all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture , and a certification label must be affixed to each refurbished vehicle to that effect.

If the refurbished buses are not "new" under these same criteria, then there is no obligation to recertify the vehicles. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business works on your buses, then there is restriction on what these commercial businesses can do - even if the vehicle is used. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits these persons from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any device or element of design incorporated into the vehicle in complia nce with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this restriction does not apply when the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) makes a modification, or if a repair facility that does not hold itself out to the public as being in the busi ness of motor vehicle repair (e.g., a maintenance shop that works only for the school board) makes the modification.

Question 4: If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

As I stated in my answers to Questions 2 and 3, under certain circumstances, the vehicle must be recertified by the refurbisher. The refurbisher is responsible for the vehicle's compliance status just as any vehicle manufacturer, and must be able to sho w that he exercised due care in certifying the vehicle. The agency examines issues of due care on a case-by-case basis evaluating all relevant facts. This evaluation would include assessing technological limitations, availability of test equipment, the market position of the manufacturer, and most importantly, the degree of manufacturer diligence.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht91-7.18

DATE: November 25, 1991

FROM: Don Weidman -- Manager, Special Projects, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Don Weidman (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On May 15, 1990 in the Federal Register Docket 88-17 Notice 2 a final rule was issued to become effective on December 1, 1990 requiring vehicles 80 inches or more in width to have stop and turn lamps with 75cm(2) of "effective projected luminous lens area" (EPLLA).

This occurred when NHTSA adopted SAE J-1395 April 85 for turn lamps and J-1398 May 85 for stop lamps.

Question is how will these new larger requirements affect the agriculture vehicles and implements when they are traveling on the highways?

Presently SAE J-137 June 89 covers lighting and marking of agriculture equipment on highways.

It requires a single tail light which meets J-585 and has no area requirements.

It requires at least two amber flashing warning lamps conforming to J-974. J-974 requires the lamp to have an effective projected illuminated area of 12 in(2).

Paragraph 3.14 of SAE J-137 states "when turn indicators are provided the amber flashing warning lamps shall be used as turn indicators".

What lighting and safety equipment standards must the agriculture equipment comply with to be legal when operating on the highways FMVSS-108 or SAE J-137?

If the warning lamp also serves as a turn signal lamp and the 12 in(2) effective projected illuminated lens area required in J-974 is measured by including all illuminated areas such as lens legs, and screw bosses will this be considered legal when operating on the highways?

We would appreciate knowing NHTSA's position on this issue.

We have one of our customers in the process of making a decision on their future purchases of lighting devices, therefore we would appreciate receiving your reply as soon as possible.

ID: nht91-7.19

DATE: November 26, 1991

FROM: H. Ino -- Manager, Quality Assurance, Diamond Star Motors

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: NHTSA'S VIN Requirements (FMVSS 115)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to H. Ino (A39; VSA 108(b)(3); Std. 115)

TEXT:

In a telephone conversation on Friday, Nov. 22nd, Ms. Dorothy Nakama informed Diamond-Star Motors that FMVSS 115 is only applicable to vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. She also recommended that in order to receive this in writing I must send a written request for an interpretation of FMVSS 115.

Please send an interpretation of FMVSS 115 which addresses to whom this standard is applicable and any exceptions that are applicable. Thank you very much.

ID: nht91-7.2

DATE: November 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marc M. Baldwin -- Parker, McCay & Criscuolo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-25-91 from Marc M. Baldwin to NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your September 25, 1991, letter in which you asked "the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed." Lap, or 2-point, belts have never been outlawed by this agency. Rather, 3-point, or lap/shoulder belts have been required at certain seating positions in certain vehicles. Lap belts are still permitted as the only occupant restraint at a seating position in all vehicles at some seating positions. Such seating positions include all seating positions that are not outboard seating positions and all seating positions that are not forward-facing. Your letter mentioned that you are specifically interested in this information for pending litigation regarding a 1984 passenger car convertible. Passenger car convertibles manufactured in 1984 were permitted to have lap belts installed at all seating positions. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in passenger cars. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

Beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers were required to begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their passenger cars. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 required manufacturers to certify that at Bleast ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987, complied with S4.1.2.1. S4.1.3.2 required 25 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1987, and before September 1, 1988, to comply with S4.1.2.1, and S4.1.3.3 required 40 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1988, and before September 1, 1989, to comply with S4.1.2.1.

However, the agency temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. This exclusion meant that convertibles did not have to be counted in the total passenger car production to determine the percentage of total passenger car production equipped with automatic restraints. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles manufactured prior to September 1, 1989, were allowed to have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt at each seating position. All passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must be certified as complying with S4.1.2.1.

There are also currently requirements for lap/shoulder belts in some rear seating positions in convertibles. Again, however, these requirements would not have applied to the 1984 convertible involved in your litigation. For your information, S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 includes additional requirements for forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars. All passenger cars, except convertibles, manufactured on or after December 11, 1989, were required to have lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions. All convertibles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have lap/shoulder belts at these positions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2999.

ID: nht91-7.20

DATE: 11/26/91

FROM: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW, NHTSA

TO: RICHARD LANGLAIS -- ENGINEER, PRELCO INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM RICHARD LANGLAIS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 8067); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-23-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO RICHARD LANGLAIS (A40; STD. 205; PART S51)

TEXT: This is in response to your recent letter which requested information on obtaining a DOT number.

Before your company can begin importing automotive products into this country and prior to the assignment of a DOT identification number, you must provide an original letter of designation and acceptance by the designated party that complies with the provisions of 49 CFR @ 551.45. The required designation should be mailed to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which must be a permanent resident of the United States and may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation;

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent; and

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath the signature.

I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR @ 551.45, and a sample of a properly executed designation of agent. If you have any questions about the requirements for the appointment of an agent, please do not hesitate to contact me.

For you information, I have also enclosed a handout which provides additional information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and a copy of federal regulations relevant to automotive glazing. If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Mr. Clarke Harper, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Room 5320, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

ID: nht91-7.21

DATE: November 27, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: None (Confidential)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your September 9, 1991 letter requesting an interpretation of Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays (49 CFR S571.101) and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). More specifically, you stated that your company is planning to incorporate seat belt pretensioners for the manual safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions in some future models. Your company intends to provide an onboard diagnostic system, including a malfunction display, to inform the driver about the functional status of the pretensioner system. You asked how Standards No. 101 and 208 would affect three alternative visual displays your company is contemplating. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our standards for you.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to indicate how this letter is responding to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the identity of your company. NHTSA granted your request in a 1991 letter signed by Kathleen DeMeter, our Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law. To reflect this agency determination, we will make available to the public only the version of your letter to me that your company purged of all references to your company's identity and a version of this letter that is purged of all references to your identity.

Your letter set forth three alternative means of providing information about the functional status of the pretensioner system to the driver. Under Alternative #1, your company would use the existing seat belt telltale display field to provide information in the event of a pretensioner malfunction. The seat belt telltale light currently illuminates for a six second period following the ignition being switched on, regardless of whether the seat belt is fastened. In the event of a pretensioner malfunction, you propose to have the seat belt telltale light go off for a five second period, and then begin blinking a "pretensioner malfunction" message.

Alternative #2 would also combine the "fasten seat belt" and "pretensioner malfunction" messages in the same display. For this alternative, if belts are fastened prior to ignition, the seat belt telltale light would illuminate for a seven second period following the ignition being switched on. In the event of a pretensioner malfunction, a pretensioner malfunction message would begin flashing on and off. If the seat belts are not fastened prior to ignition, the seat belt telltale light would remain illuminated until the seat belts are fastened. In the event of a pretensioner system malfunction, a fasten seat belt/pretensioner malfunction message would begin flashing on and off. If the belts were later fastened, this would be replaced by a pretensioner malfunction message.

Alternative #3 would combine the pretensioner malfunction message with the readiness indicator for the air bag system, which is required by S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208. Under this alternative, the readiness indicator would flash steadily in the event of a malfunction in either the air bag system or the pretensioner. Only trained service technicians would be able to determine which of those two systems was experiencing the malfunction.

You then posed several questions about these alternatives. Underlying all of these questions is the issue of whether your company is required to provide an indication of a malfunction in the pretensioner system for manual belts. The only source for such a requirement would be S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208, which reads as follows:

An occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position.

It is plain that pretensioners for manual belts are designed to activate in the event of a crash. However, the basic occupant protection system, the manual belts, are already deployed at that time, assuming they have been manually fastened. Further, if the belts have not been manually fastened, the pretensioners will not deploy the belts in the event of a crash. Thus, we do not view the pretensioners as "deploying" the belts but instead providing a final, albeit important, adjustment to belts which have already been deployed. Therefore, a manual belt system is not required to include a readiness indicator by S4.5.2, even if it includes pretensioners that activate in the event of a crash.

Further support for this position comes from reviewing the preambles for both the proposal and the final rule (35 FR 7187, May 7, 1970, and 35 FR 16927, November 3, 1970, respectively) adding the readiness indicator requirement to Standard No. 208. Those preambles make clear that NHTSA was focusing on newly developed occupant protection systems, some of which deployed in the event of a crash (e.g., air bags), and not on improvements and modifications of existing manual seat belt systems.

Since neither S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 nor any other provision of the safety standards requires your company to provide a readiness indicator for the pretensioner in the manual belt systems, the decision to provide a readiness indicator for those pretensioners is voluntary. The issue then arises of whether and how the safety standards would affect the voluntarily provided readiness indicator for the pretensioners.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed IN ADDITION TO required safety systems are not required to comply with the provisions of the safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. See, e.g., this office's December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis and this office's October 13, 1988 letter to Mr. Paul Utans. The question for each of your three alternatives, then, is whether the combination of the voluntarily provided pretensioner telltale with the

required seat belt telltale or air bag readiness indicator would result in the required equipment failing to comply with Standards No. 101 and/or 208.

Under Alternatives #1 and 2, your company would display the pretensioner telltale on common space with the seat belt telltale required by Standard No. 208. Alternative #1 would provide a seat belt telltale that appears to comply with S7.3(a)(2) of Standard No. 208, and Alternative #2 would provide a seat belt telltale that appears to comply with S7.3(a)(1) of Standard No. 208. Thus, your company's use of a common space to display a voluntary pretensioner malfunction message and the required seat belt telltale does not result in the seat belt telltales failing to comply with Standard No. 208.

The other safety standard that might affect your company's ability to use common space for the pretensioner malfunction message and the seat belt telltale is Standard No. 101. S5(a) of Standard No. 101 provides that "each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification and illumination of such ... display." Column 1 of Table 2 includes, among other things, the seat belt telltale. This means that your company's voluntary addition of a pretensioner readiness indicator cannot be done in a way that would make the seat belt telltale fail to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 101.

Since Alternatives #1 and 2 would combine the seat belt telltale with the pretensioner malfunction indicator, the most relevant provisions in Standard No. 101 are those in S5.4. S5.4 reads, in part, as follows: S5.4 A common space may be used to display messages from any sources, subject to the following requirements: (a) The telltales for the brake, high beam, and turn signal, and the safety belt telltale required by S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208 may not be shown on the common space.

* * * * *

(e) The safety belt telltale must be displayed and visible during the time specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 208

These provisions expressly permit the use of a common space to display messages, except that four telltales cannot be displayed on common space. The relevant one of the four telltales that cannot be displayed on common space is the safety belt telltale REQUIRED BY S4.5.3.3 OF STANDARD NO. 208. S4.5.3.3 sets forth special telltale requirements that must be met by automatic belts. The safety belt telltale for the manual belts in Alternative #1 is required by S7.3(a)(2) and the safety belt telltale for the manual belts in Alternative #2 is required by S7.3(a)(1) of Standard No. 208. Since neither telltale is required by S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, S5.4(a) of Standard No. 101 expressly permits the use of common space to show a pretensioner malfunction message and the seat belt telltales under Alternatives #1 and 2 in your letter.

Further, Alternatives #1 and 2 appear to comply with S5.4(e) of Standard No. 101. That subparagraph requires that the seat belt telltale must be displayed and visible during the time specified in S7.3 of Standard No.

208. For Alternative #1, S7.3(a)(2) requires the seat belt telltale to be visible for four to eight seconds after the ignition is turned "on". The information in your letter indicates that under Alternative #1, even in the event of a pretensioner malfunction, the only information that would be displayed in the common space during the four to eight second period would be the seat belt telltale. For Alternative #2, S7.3(a)(1) of Standard No. 208 requires that the seat belt telltale be visible for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition is turned "on," if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The information in your letter indicates that under Alternative #2, even in the event of a pretensioner malfunction, the seat belt telltale would continue to be displayed alternately with the pretensioner malfunction message until such time as the belt was fastened.

Based on this review, it appears that using common space to display a voluntary pretensioner malfunction message and the required seat belt telltale, in the manner set forth in Alternatives #1 and 2 in your letter, would not violate any provisions of the safety standards.

This leaves Alternative #3, in which the voluntary pretensioner telltale would share common space with the air bag readiness indicator. S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires that the air bag have a readiness indicator, which monitors its readiness, and which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. The requirements in S5(a) of Standard No. 101 do not include air bag readiness indicators. Therefore, the provisions of Standard No. 101 would not apply to Alternative #3. The only question under Alternative #3, then, is whether the combination of the voluntarily provided pretensioner telltale with the required air bag readiness indicator would result in the air bag readiness indicator failing to comply with Standard No. 208.

Based on the description in your letter, we believe that your proposed Alternative #3 would effectively prevent the air bag readiness indicator from complying with Standard No. 208. Therefore, vehicles equipped with the warning system described in Alternative #3 would not comply with Standard No. 208. This conclusion is based on the following.

It would be permissible under Standard No. 208 to use a common space to display messages for both air bag readiness and a pretensioner malfunction. Nothing in the Standard No. 208 requirement for an air bag readiness indicator either expressly or impliedly precludes the use of common space for displaying the air bag readiness indicator and some other message. However, the messages on the common space would have to be distinguishable from each other. If the messages were not distinguishable, the driver of the vehicle would not know if the illuminated telltale showed a problem with the air bag system or a problem with the other system being monitored. NHTSA concludes that the requirement in S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 that an air bag system be equipped with a readiness indicator necessarily requires that the air bag readiness indicator be clearly and readily distinguishable by the driver from any other information. Your Alternative #3 would not provide a readily distinguishable air bag readiness indicator, and so would not appear to comply with Standard No. 208.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.22

DATE: November 27, 1991

FROM: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re L03/04

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Masashi Maekawa (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Enclosed please find our written inquiring concerning the interpretation of photometric output requirements for Tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

ATTACHMENT

Dear Mr. P.J. Rice,

This letter is a question for the interpretation of photometer output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

We would like to know your opinion toward regarding photometer requirements.

We know the lamp like the following drawing is treated as two separate lamps: one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid.

Each lamp complies with the effective projected luminous areas requirements, but doesn't comply with the photometric requirement as shown below:

Effective projected Photometric requirement luminous requirement

Lamp A Comply does not comply Lamp B Comply does not comply

In this case, is it possible to apply the combination of lamps (Lamps A & B), as prescribed in S 5.1.1.6 of FMVSS No.108 to the photometric requirement of the stop lamp?

If yes, 1. Is it also possible to apply this provision to Tail lamp? 2. Which photometric requirements, 1 lighted section or 2 lighted sections, will apply?

Drawing of Tail/Stop Lamps A and B in relation to the quarter panel side and trunk lid side.

(Drawing omitted)

ID: nht91-7.23

DATE: November 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael H. Dunn -- Micho Industries

TITLE: RE: R-Bar Occupant Restraint System

TEXT: This is in response to your letter dated November 3, 1991 to Mr. Charles L. Gauthier updating him on your progress with the R-Bar Occupant Restraint System. The materials that you enclosed with the letter include articles from The Scranton Times and Santa Barbara News-Press. The Scranton Times article states that the Department of Transportation has "evaluated and approved" the R-Bar Occupant Restraint System. The Santa Barbara News-Press article states that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) "has gone on record that these devices meet or exceed all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards." Additionally, it has been reported to us that Micho Industries is making similar oral representations to potential customers.

All of these representations are incorrect. Neither the Department of Transportation nor the NHTSA has approved the R-Bar Occupant Restraint System. The NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. Furthermore, to state that the R-Bar meets or exceeds all applicable standards is grossly misleading when there are, in fact, no standards directly applicable to this device.

Therefore, I must insist that you immediately refrain from representing that NHTSA approves the R-Bar Occupant Restraint System, that it meets applicable Federal standards, or that NHTSA has gone on record as stating that it meets any standards. Should you continue such representations NHTSA will have no other choice but to bring the appropriate legal action against you.